Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="jncuse, post: 4889152, member: 1969"]
I'll just address this quickly since I had a long post above:
1) KP does not equal NET, its actually not even a part of NET  - NET actually uses something else (BPI?) as their margin system, and its merely just a component of NET.  There are many factors that go into NET - the biggest being actually simply winning and losing games.   (schedule considered of course)

2) KP is a piece of data the committee can consider but its not part of their core metrics - nor should it be.   It should come down to W's and L's.    My only exception on this thought are teams from mid-majors which are hard to compare -- for those KP is sometimes the best way to try to compare in my view - but I don't think the committee feels the same.   At the end of the day Q1, Q2 wins, bad losses, overall record, having an acceptable NET are the drivers.

3) Here are the NETS from last year... look at the teams around #50 vs those around #100, or those at #35 vs #65  Simply looking at the records you can tell there is a big difference in those teams.   You might find one or two outliers that look strange, but the teams are typically easy to tell apart.   I don't think NET is driving some crazy out of whack records.
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2023/net[/URL]

4) NET (or KP) is not self-reinforcing based on preseason predictions.   That being said, what a conference does OOC is huge.   If a conference does great prior to December,  you can see it as the NETS self-reinforcing in conference season.   Alternatively if you stink like the ACC has recently it has the other impact.

But its not a KP or a NET issue - its an issue of your conference doing bad OOC.     The argument can be whether that is too important and how do we adjust but that is another matter.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?